In a cross-continental legal battle, the Supreme Court of India has granted interim custody of a child to his father, an Indian resident, after determining that the child's mother had misled courts in both India and the United Kingdom. The court found that the mother had consistently acted in a way that suggested she never intended for the child to maintain a relationship with his father.
The woman, seeking to build a life and career in the UK away from a strained marriage, had reportedly deceived both a British court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court by falsely claiming that both her children, a daughter and a son, were living with her in England. In reality, she had left her son with her parents in Sonepat, Haryana, India. She deliberately concealed this fact from her estranged husband, going as far as to manipulate their phone conversations to hide the boy's true location and circumstances.
The father's suspicions eventually led him to his in-laws' home, where he found his son. However, he was allegedly met with violence by his wife's parents. The UK High Court strongly criticized the mother's actions, stating that she had "lured the court into error by failing to disclose that she had only removed Miss N to the UK and that Master K remained in India". The court called her actions a "crude subterfuge, which was always going to be found out" and stated that it "does the mother no credit at all".
Following these revelations, the father petitioned the Punjab and Haryana High Court for custody of his son, which was granted. The mother, along with her parents and brother, then challenged this order before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court bench, comprised of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi, highlighted the unusual nature of the case. They noted that the woman had filed for divorce in the UK, a move contested by the husband, while she simultaneously opposed the divorce petition filed by the husband in a Jind court in India. The bench stated that the case reflected a "deep-rooted conflict between the mother and father, arising from their divergent intentions regarding staying together and raising their children in India". The court observed that this discord had negatively affected both children, with the daughter residing with the mother in the UK.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the judicial systems in both India and the UK had been "taken for a ride" by the mother. The court underscored the importance of the son's welfare, noting that the mother was residing in London with their daughter while the son was living with his grandparents, despite the father being capable and willing to care for him. The court also pointed out that the father was deprived of virtual meetings with his son, despite court orders from the UK High Court. This ultimately led him to file a habeas corpus petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Supreme Court found that the mother never intended for her son to meet his father or honor the court's orders.
In light of these circumstances, the Supreme Court upheld the grant of interim custody to the father. The court also established visitation rights for the mother and the maternal grandparents. The mother or the daughter has the right to audio or video access to the son from 5 pm to 7 pm every Saturday. The mother has the right to visitation on every Sunday from 1 pm to 5 pm at a mutually decided place during her visit to India. The maternal grandparents shall also have visitation rights from 1 pm to 5 pm every Sunday at a mutually decided place.
This case highlights the complexities and challenges that can arise in international child custody disputes, especially when one parent is found to be intentionally misleading the courts. The Supreme Court's decision underscores the paramount importance of prioritizing the child's welfare and ensuring their right to maintain relationships with both parents, when possible.
